Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1056 1989 SLD 1056 1989 PLC 36
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. 78/157 of 1983, decided on 14th April, 1988.
IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY CHAIRMAN, KH. MUHAMMAD YOUSUF AND CH. ABDUR RASHID, MEMBERS
MA. Riaz for Appellant. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for
Respondent.

ABDUS SALAM

VS

CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

Law:

Section:

Civil service-- --- Adverse remarks--Displeasure conveyed to civil servant is a specie of adverse remarks--Appeal before Tribunal against displeasure after rejection of departmental representation, is maintainable. JUDGMENT IHSANUL HAO CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).--The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as a Chief Engineer, Buildings Department, Lahore, when a Court of Enquiry was constituted to look into the construction work of L.D.A. Contractors in WASA Project D-104. The appellant was one of the members of the Committee. The Committee formulated its report and submitted it. The Authorities after going through the report decided to issue a show-cause notice whereby the appellant was called upon to explain why disciplinary proceedings under Efficiency and Discipline Rules should not be initiated against him for misconduct and inefficiency? 2. The appellant submitted reply to the same. The notice was not pursued further but Governor's displeasure was conveyed for the lapses and shortcomings of the appellant through letter dated 2-1-1982. The appellant submitted representation for withdrawal of `displeasure', which was considered and rejected. The decision was notified to the appellant through memo, dated 23-1-1983. 3. The appellant still not feeling satisfied decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal through the present appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The same was admitted to regular hearing on 28-4-1983. Notices were issued to the respondents, who have entered appearance, filed the written objections and contested the appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who has vehemently argued that the members of the Committee performed duty to the best of their abilities and their opinion was ultimately given effect. It was further argued that the appellant has an excellent service record and the displeasure was without justification. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that the displeasure conveyed to the appellant is not covered either by the provision of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules nor it is included in the definition of terms and conditions of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492